Joined: Feb. 2006
|Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 19 2011,19:45)|
|Nick Matzke asks:|
|How could JonathanM have missed this huge and obvious biological fact, if he is claiming to give a well-researched account of the system?|
That's one o' them reetoerickle questions, right?
Scott Andrews takes a shot at Nick's answer, scores an own goal
|ScottAndrews September 19, 2011 at 6:57 pm|
You would have everyone’s full attention if you could refute Jonathan’s conclusion by describing how natural selection accounts for such developments. You could demolish his argument by providing yours. Instead, your objection calls attention to your inability to do so.
The trouble isn’t that your explanation isn’t good. It’s that you don’t have one at all. It’s like telling a child that babies from from storks. It only holds up as long as you avoid giving details. Eventually you have to admit that you don’t know where storks get babies and no one has ever seen a stork deliver a baby, and then you cave in like an extra on Law and Order.
Sure thing Scottie - like all those details you and the rest of the IDiots at UD have provided on the mechanisms of Intelligent Design. Like when the design was done, and where, and by what physical processes, and by whom.
What a bunch of spineless hypocrites.
"Science is what got us to the humble place weâ€™re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD